Perspectives on same sex marriage
Perspectives on Same-Sex Marriage
The article Perspectives on Same-Sex Marriage look at compares two opposing arguments on the topic. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall gives the majority opinion on the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health a case concerning same sex marriage. The article looks at Matthew Spalding’s opinion and arguments against same sex marriage. A few of the key premises that Justice Marshall uses in her argument is that Massachusetts Constitution bars the creation of a second class citizen, that barring individuals in a same sex marriage from protections, benefits, obligations of married couples is incompatible to the constitution. These two premises Marshall uses in her argument are prescriptive as they are based on value statements. Two of the premises used by Spalding in his argument is through out history every society and major religion and legal precedent set has always up held marriage as being a union between a man and woman. Another premise he uses is that redefining the definition of marriage weakens the societal importance marriage plays within our society. Spalding’s first premise could be viewed as definitional as it states what the definition of marriage has been throughout history, but it also could be viewed as analogical as it compares history to this point in time. For those who oppose same sex marriage on a federal level but support civil unions and equal rights for same sex couples are actually being hypocritical. If same sex marriage isn’t recognized at the federal level same sex couples to not get them same treatment and benefits of those in a regular marriage therefore equal rights haven’t be obtained. Same sex couples would continue to not receive tax breaks, legal protections, and benefits such health benefits through a spouse as other married couples do. I think Justice Marshall would argue these same points if the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of
The article Perspectives on Same-Sex Marriage look at compares two opposing arguments on the topic. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall gives the majority opinion on the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health a case concerning same sex marriage. The article looks at Matthew Spalding’s opinion and arguments against same sex marriage. A few of the key premises that Justice Marshall uses in her argument is that Massachusetts Constitution bars the creation of a second class citizen, that barring individuals in a same sex marriage from protections, benefits, obligations of married couples is incompatible to the constitution. These two premises Marshall uses in her argument are prescriptive as they are based on value statements. Two of the premises used by Spalding in his argument is through out history every society and major religion and legal precedent set has always up held marriage as being a union between a man and woman. Another premise he uses is that redefining the definition of marriage weakens the societal importance marriage plays within our society. Spalding’s first premise could be viewed as definitional as it states what the definition of marriage has been throughout history, but it also could be viewed as analogical as it compares history to this point in time. For those who oppose same sex marriage on a federal level but support civil unions and equal rights for same sex couples are actually being hypocritical. If same sex marriage isn’t recognized at the federal level same sex couples to not get them same treatment and benefits of those in a regular marriage therefore equal rights haven’t be obtained. Same sex couples would continue to not receive tax breaks, legal protections, and benefits such health benefits through a spouse as other married couples do. I think Justice Marshall would argue these same points if the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of
References: Agent Orange: Background on Monsanto 's Involvement. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2014, from Monsanto: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/agent-orange-background-monsanto-involvement.aspx Ferrell, O., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2013). Business Ethics Ethical Decision Making and Cases 9th edition. Mason, Ohio: South-Western.